Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 21, line 35, to delete "paragraph (a), (e) or (f) of".

Each of these amendments refers to section 22 of the Bill, which introduces restrictions on post-term employment as a lobbyist. I do not believe Deputies, Senators, Members of the European Parliament and councillors should be exempt from these restrictions, including the requirement on a person to obtain pre-authorisation by way of an application to the Standards in Public Office Commission if he or she wants to take up employment as a lobbyist within two years of leaving public office. The Minister and I have debated this previously. I reiterate that it might not be in the public interest for certain individuals to make their insider influence, knowledge or contacts available, especially to private commercial interests who might become their clients. For that reason, I believe people in this category should be covered by the provisions of this section of the Bill.

I concur with the view of most commentators - certainly, most of those whose views I am acquainted with - that a two-year cooling-off period during which the law would impose restrictions on post-term employment as a lobbyist would provide a much safer margin to protect the public from influence-peddling for hire. I do not believe such a longer period would be excessively onerous; indeed, it would be especially reasonable given that the Bill does not impose an absolute prohibition but rather makes provision for the conditional or unconditional consent of the Standards in Public Office Commission in appropriate cases, as set out in the legislation. I can almost pre-empt the Minister's response, which will involve what is reasonable and a person's constitutional right to work etc. We have debated all of this previously. While I am obviously convinced by the rights that people enjoy, I am not convinced that two years is excessively onerous. I suggest such a provision would be safer and much more clearly in the public interest, particularly as it is not an absolute express prohibition - it is just two years of conditionality. If the Minister cannot agree to accept this amendment, perhaps he will agree that we should keep a very close eye on this matter. I think we should maintain a watching brief in respect of the 12-month review.

See this speech in context